LEEANNA FAYE BAUMGARTNER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
When a conflict exists between an oral revocation pronouncement and the written order revoking probation, the oral pronouncement controls, and the case must be remanded for the written order to conform.
[1] When a conflict exists between an oral pronouncement of probation revocation and the written order memorializing that revocation, the oral pronouncement controls and the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When a conflict exists between an oral revocation pronouncement and the written order revoking probation, the oral pronouncement will control.”
Court citing Thompson v. State, 965 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) to establish the controlling principle.
Baumgartner's probation was revoked following a hearing. The trial court orally pronounced violations of condition (8) and special condition (2) only,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Written Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the revocation of Appellant’s probation and resulting sentence but remand the case for entry of a written order that conforms with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See, e.g., Thompson v. State, 965 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“When a conflict exists between an oral revocation pronouncement and the written order revoking probation, the oral pronouncement will control.”). Here, the written order details Appellant’s violation of conditions (2), (8), and (10), as well as special condition (2) of her probation. However, at hearing, the trial court orally pronounced violations of condition (8) and special condition (2) only.
At hearing, the trial court also orally advised that Appellant would retain the option of performing community service in lieu of payment of court costs. However, the written order allows performance of community service in lieu of restitution, not court costs. On remand, the trial court should resolve the conflicts between the written order and oral pronouncements.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.
ROWE, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Tabitha R. Herrera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2